JINDAL STAINLESS LTD Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals and certain connected matters were initially heard by a two-Judge Bench of this Court. The matters were referred to a larger Bench by order dated 26.9.2003 as the Bench hearing the matters doubted the correctness of the views expressed in M/s. Bhagatram Rajeevkumar vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. and Others [(1995) 1 Suppl. SCC 673] which was relied on in a subsequent decision in State of Bihar and Others vs. Bihar Chambers of Commerce and Others [(1996) 9 SCC 136. The matters were dealt with by a Constitution Bench to decide with certitude the parameters of the judicially evolved concept of Compensatory Tax" viz-a-viz. Article 301 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the Constitution).

(2.) The Constitution Bench in Jindal Stainless Ltd. and Anr. vs. State of Haryana and Ors. [(2006) 4 SCALE 300] [speaking through one of us (Kapadia, J.) concluded as follows :

(3.) In all these appeals and connected matters the basic issue revolves round the concept of "Compensatory Tax". In all these matters the concerned High Courts do not appear to have examined the issue in the proper perspective, as they were bound by the judgments in Bhagatrams case (supra) and Bihar Chamber of Commerces case (supra).